Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil Unions

Nov 30, 2010 Full story: CBS2 51,249

The Illinois House has approved a measure to legalize civil unions for same-sex couples.

Full Story

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#38176 Mar 17, 2013
Judgment Day Cometh wrote:
<quoted text>
God says all homosexuals have no place in Heaven. Hence, they burn in hell; just like you will. Yeppers, I think you are sick in the head. And it shows. Now, when your days comes and you are sent to see your daddy "satan," what will you do? Oh! That's right, you are obviously a demon for him doing his work already. You can deny that all you will. But is shows quite clearly.
BTW .. FOOK U!
Jesus called; you're embarrassing him.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#38177 Mar 17, 2013
At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

Gay couples are never more than a redumbant half of that relationship, and a direct defective contradiction to the primary goal of evolution.

Smile.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#38178 Mar 17, 2013
KiMare wrote:
At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Gay couples are never more than a redumbant half of that relationship, and a direct defective contradiction to the primary goal of evolution.
Smile.
evolution canl afford to be contradicted a little.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#38179 Mar 17, 2013
can*
GREAT NEWS

Chicago, IL

#38180 Mar 17, 2013
r_a_n_d_o_m wrote:
i have a lesbian friend who i promised to be her best man or what ever when she gets married. happy things are starting to progress
FANTASTIC

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#38181 Mar 18, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
evolution canl afford to be contradicted a little.
Of course. That is why every culture that ever existed has done so with marriage.

However, imposing a defect on evolutionary mating behavior isn't a constriction, it is stupidity.

Smirk.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#38182 Mar 18, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course. That is why every culture that ever existed has done so with marriage.
However, imposing a defect on evolutionary mating behavior isn't a constriction, it is stupidity.
Smirk.
opinion, not fact,

Since: Mar 07

Drakes Branch, VA

#38183 Mar 18, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course. That is why every culture that ever existed has done so with marriage.
However, imposing a defect on evolutionary mating behavior isn't a constriction, it is stupidity.
Smirk.
That didn't make much sense. Marriage has changed drastically from culture to culture, and what we value today about marriage certainly wasn't the norm through much of history.

What you need to do is explain, rationally, why gay couples marrying TODAY will harm OUR culture in any way.

Why would legal marriage for gay couples be bad for them, provide LESS security for their kids, less support for the elderly gay couples? Then, after you prove that marriage is harmful ONLY to gay couples and their families, you would need to prove that married gay couples are harmful to our society.

Good luck. So far, no one else has been able to do that.

Since: Mar 07

Drakes Branch, VA

#38184 Mar 18, 2013
KiMare wrote:
At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
...
So, straight people need constraint on their mating behaviors, and marraige is successful at that goal?

I think you might want to research the stats a bit more. The fornication that straight folks seem to engage in before, during, and after marriage seem to prove that your "restraint" just isn't working.

Gay folks legally marrying won't affect the mating habits of heterosexuals. If they want to clean up their act, they will need to learn to do it on their own.
bobby

Kankakee, IL

#38185 Mar 18, 2013
same sex marriage simply says to civilization 'it is okay to allow mistakes'

there's a place to form a legal bond with another person, but allowing such an existance on paper simply says to civilization 'there is absolutely zero legal value while spending time with said person'

that leads to value of effort diminished because people wont value their time with high regard unless there is a piece of paper granting permission.
with that, less beauty happens.

people's floating willpower is constrained because of somebody's needing thirst to see it all registered, a real smack in the face for any monitoring system that can simply record two people spending time together to conclude 'obviously these two value eachother's time'

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#38187 Mar 18, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
That didn't make much sense. Marriage has changed drastically from culture to culture, and what we value today about marriage certainly wasn't the norm through much of history.
What you need to do is explain, rationally, why gay couples marrying TODAY will harm OUR culture in any way.
Why would legal marriage for gay couples be bad for them, provide LESS security for their kids, less support for the elderly gay couples? Then, after you prove that marriage is harmful ONLY to gay couples and their families, you would need to prove that married gay couples are harmful to our society.
Good luck. So far, no one else has been able to do that.
For the sake of argument, Kuntmary likes to pretend that marriage had always been exactly as it is now. Acknowledging the evolutionary status of marriage diminishes his pretend argument.
little freddy

Saint Louis, MO

#38188 Mar 18, 2013
I see both of daddies kiss all the time. When I tried to kiss my best friend Joey he got mad.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#38189 Mar 18, 2013
little freddy wrote:
I see both of daddies kiss all the time. When I tried to kiss my best friend Joey he got mad.
that's because male pit bulls don't like to be kissed.
Gibby1

Saint Louis, MO

#38192 Mar 18, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
That didn't make much sense. Marriage has changed drastically from culture to culture, and what we value today about marriage certainly wasn't the norm through much of history.
What you need to do is explain, rationally, why gay couples marrying TODAY will harm OUR culture in any way.
Why would legal marriage for gay couples be bad for them, provide LESS security for their kids, less support for the elderly gay couples? Then, after you prove that marriage is harmful ONLY to gay couples and their families, you would need to prove that married gay couples are harmful to our society.
Good luck. So far, no one else has been able to do that.
KiMore...accept the challenge. The premise for "accepting" gay marriage is that this is only about sex and
what two-of-a-kind do with their sexual elements.
Laws and regulations in our society are there to serve as the bumper-guards to how we choose to live
as a people and society. Numerous laws dictate how we are to conduct ourselves. We cannot discriminate for ...housing, jobs, voting, and sexual orientation. You can't yell fire in a movie theater nor go 85 mph on the freeway, etc etc.
Get the point?? No one is saying, that what you do behind closed doors, with whomever you do it with, is
being taken away. Because when you walk out of that bedroom door, we are all back to playing by the
same set of societal rules. Why do we need another set of laws that speak to your sexual choice? What you
do behind those doors is your business....society doesn't need to vote on what you do there...that's your business. But because you may like Popsicles and I like pie, doesn't give me nor you--nor society--the
right to say we must allow either within the societal regulations.
You see?? Sex is NOT a society issue---so stop trying to make it one. Its not a 'what's the harm','less security' issue....it is sex and however you wanted served up to you. Nothing more...nothing less. Play by society rules and what you do in your personal world, is no concern or harm to me.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#38194 Mar 19, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course. That is why every culture that ever existed has done so with marriage.
However, imposing a defect on evolutionary mating behavior isn't a constriction, it is stupidity.
Smirk.
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
opinion, not fact,
No, it's fact.

Here's another fact.

Your response is denial.

And another fact.

Your response is stupid.

Snicker.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#38195 Mar 19, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course. That is why every culture that ever existed has done so with marriage.
However, imposing a defect on evolutionary mating behavior isn't a constriction, it is stupidity.
Smirk.
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
That didn't make much sense. Marriage has changed drastically from culture to culture, and what we value today about marriage certainly wasn't the norm through much of history.
What you need to do is explain, rationally, why gay couples marrying TODAY will harm OUR culture in any way.
Why would legal marriage for gay couples be bad for them, provide LESS security for their kids, less support for the elderly gay couples? Then, after you prove that marriage is harmful ONLY to gay couples and their families, you would need to prove that married gay couples are harmful to our society.
Good luck. So far, no one else has been able to do that.
It makes perfect sense to a logical person. By your gay twirl of marriage history, you obviously are not.

Let's see, Adam and Eve, Romeo and Juliet, or better yet, here is a site to educate stupidity;

http://amolife.com/reviews/
top-20-most-famous-love-storie s-in-history-and-literature.ht ml

Furthermore, I have no need to explain harm in any way. You need to equate desolate duplicate gendered couples to the sole best diverse gendered setting that birthed every other relationship in existence.

Snicker.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#38196 Mar 19, 2013
KiMare wrote:
At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
So, straight people need constraint on their mating behaviors, and marraige is successful at that goal?
I think you might want to research the stats a bit more. The fornication that straight folks seem to engage in before, during, and after marriage seem to prove that your "restraint" just isn't working.
Gay folks legally marrying won't affect the mating habits of heterosexuals. If they want to clean up their act, they will need to learn to do it on their own.
Who said that it is always successful?

Nor does that change or disprove the purpose of marriage. The same can be said of any societal law.

However, as the latest, largest and most scientific study to date of seven family types, the effects of marriage exceeded all others by far. Lesbians came in last. AFTER single parents. Gays didn't even rate!

Of course gays can't affect normal sex. Nor can they replicate it. They only ever represent half of normal sex!!!

You don't know these things?

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#38197 Mar 19, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
For the sake of argument, Kuntmary likes to pretend that marriage had always been exactly as it is now. Acknowledging the evolutionary status of marriage diminishes his pretend argument.
Just a heads up brainless, non-functioning vagina; The evolutionary influence of mating behavior in marriage has never evolved.

Please, where do you think it went, I'd like to know too...

Snicker smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#38198 Mar 19, 2013
Gibby1 wrote:
<quoted text>
KiMore...accept the challenge. The premise for "accepting" gay marriage is that this is only about sex and
what two-of-a-kind do with their sexual elements.
Laws and regulations in our society are there to serve as the bumper-guards to how we choose to live
as a people and society. Numerous laws dictate how we are to conduct ourselves. We cannot discriminate for ...housing, jobs, voting, and sexual orientation. You can't yell fire in a movie theater nor go 85 mph on the freeway, etc etc.
Get the point?? No one is saying, that what you do behind closed doors, with whomever you do it with, is
being taken away. Because when you walk out of that bedroom door, we are all back to playing by the
same set of societal rules. Why do we need another set of laws that speak to your sexual choice? What you
do behind those doors is your business....society doesn't need to vote on what you do there...that's your business. But because you may like Popsicles and I like pie, doesn't give me nor you--nor society--the
right to say we must allow either within the societal regulations.
You see?? Sex is NOT a society issue---so stop trying to make it one. Its not a 'what's the harm','less security' issue....it is sex and however you wanted served up to you. Nothing more...nothing less. Play by society rules and what you do in your personal world, is no concern or harm to me.
Who said it was 'only' about sex?

You accept the challenge instead of making stupid assertions.

At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. Sex is only a vehicle of the primary goal of evolution. The social constraint of marriage is the unique cross cultural tool to deal with the results of evolutionary mating behavior. It is what distinguishes marriage from every other relationship.

At the most gay couples are a friendship. Hardly something for government involvement.

Smile.
bobby

Kankakee, IL

#38199 Mar 19, 2013
'marriage is the unique cross cultural tool to deal with the results of evolutionary mating behavior.'

i see clear signs of a psychotic episode.

first of all, marriage as a tool is simply an opinion, not primal fact.

saying the word 'constraint' simply shows shallow character.

saying the word 'unique' simply shows flaming character.

saying 'cross cultural tool' simply shows disgusting morales.

suggesting marriage deals with the results of evolutionary mating behavior is a key indicator of retardation in practice.

saying 'it' is a sign of laziness, preventing me to comment any further about the line.. other than needing to say both:
1. social resolution of marriage isn't enough to speak of the relationship, because social definition is vital as well too.
however, wasting time & effort bringing up the word 'constraint' is a fallacy compared to keeping focus on the resolution & definition - again a clear indication of flaming character & retardation in practice.

same sex parents are with the potential to ruin children's lives, as they might feel broken inside since their childhood.. causing a necessity for some form of tax return.

you used the word 'couples'..but given your previous actions, it is hard to warrant whether you intended to say parents or a couple without children.

2. if you were saying 'it' as in 'that' or 'everything' is what distinguishes marriage, blind to the resolution & definition of the character of each individual.. as well as the resolution & definition of each person when they are together (because of changes or neglect, if any) is something you are guilty of.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 6 min ObamaLogic 1,153,956
Obama pardons 2 Illinoisans, including former M... 33 min Le Jimbo 17
1 dead, 9 injured in daytime Chicago shootings 41 min reality is a crutch 1
xtra xtra read all about it! 1 hr Read and weep 1
The truth regarding Ebola 1 hr C_Evertt Coop 2
Italian boys confession. 1 hr Bubba Klintler 1
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 5 hr Earthling-1 49,187
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 11 hr Sunshine 181,798
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 13 hr cheluzal 98,851
Chicago Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 11:17 am PST

NBC Sports11:17AM
T.Y. Hilton is questionable, but they're not ruling him out
Bleacher Report11:28 AM
Jay Cutler Rumors: Latest Details, Speculation on Bears QB's Future
Bleacher Report11:39 AM
Complete Week 16 Preview for Indianapolis
NBC Sports12:33 PM
1 thing even Rahm can't fix: Da Bears - NBC Sports
NBC Sports 1:01 PM
Cowboys' Murray listed as questionable for Colts - NBC Sports